↓ Skip to main content

Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Biology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
115 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke
Published in
PLoS Biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constance Holman, Sophie K. Piper, Ulrike Grittner, Andreas Antonios Diamantaras, Jonathan Kimmelman, Bob Siegerink, Ulrich Dirnagl

Abstract

Given small sample sizes, loss of animals in preclinical experiments can dramatically alter results. However, effects of attrition on distortion of results are unknown. We used a simulation study to analyze the effects of random and biased attrition. As expected, random loss of samples decreased statistical power, but biased removal, including that of outliers, dramatically increased probability of false positive results. Next, we performed a meta-analysis of animal reporting and attrition in stroke and cancer. Most papers did not adequately report attrition, and extrapolating from the results of the simulation data, we suggest that their effect sizes were likely overestimated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 115 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 4%
Sweden 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 98 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Master 9 8%
Professor 8 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Neuroscience 10 9%
Psychology 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 15 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 300. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#51,720
of 15,606,585 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Biology
#137
of 4,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,494
of 369,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Biology
#2
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,585 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.